|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
dmaestro 11-Nov-12, 11:31 |
 Winning the Culture War======================================================================== California GOP Showing Worries Party Strategists By MICHAEL R. BLOOD 11/10/12 LOS ANGELES — If the future happens first in California, the Republican Party has a problem. The nation's most populous state – home to 1 in 8 Americans – has entered a period of Democratic political control so far-reaching that the dwindling number of Republicans in the Legislature are in danger of becoming mere spectators at the statehouse. Democrats hold the governorship and every other statewide office. They gained even more ground in Tuesday's elections, picking up at least three congressional seats while votes continue to be counted in two other tight races – in one upset, Democrat Raul Ruiz, a Harvard-educated physician who mobilized a district's growing swath of Hispanic voters, pushed out longtime Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack. The party also secured a supermajority in one, and possibly both, chambers in the Legislature. "Republican leaders should look at California and shudder," says Steve Schmidt, who managed John McCain's 2008 campaign and anchored former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election team in 2006. "The two-party system has collapsed." Republican voter registration has dipped so low – less than 30 percent – that the party's future state candidates will be hobbled from the start. Republicans searching for a new direction after Mitt Romney's defeat will inevitably examine why President Barack Obama rolled up more than 70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote, and 9 of 10 votes among blacks, essential ingredients in his victory. Women also supported Obama over Romney nationally and in California, where they broke for the president by 27 percentage points. There is no better place to witness how demographic shifts have shaped elections than in California, the home turf of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan that just a generation ago was a reliably Republican state in presidential contests. A surge in immigrants transformed the state, and its voting patterns. The number of Hispanics, blacks and Asians combined has outnumbered whites since 1998 in California, and by 2020 the Hispanic population alone is expected to top that of whites. With Latinos, for example, voter surveys show they've overwhelmingly favored Democratic presidential candidates for decades. Similar shifts are taking place across the nation. "There are demographic changes in the American electorate that we saw significantly, first, here in California and Republicans nationally are not reacting to them," said Jim Brulte, a former Republican leader in the California Senate. "Romney overwhelmingly carried the white vote – 20 years ago, that would have meant an electoral landslide. Instead, he lost by 2 million votes" in the state, Brulte said. Perhaps no part of the state better illustrates how Republicans surrendered ground than in Orange County, once a largely white, GOP bastion where Nixon's seaside home became known as the Western White House. Today, whites make up a little more than 40 percent of the population, while 2 in 10 residents are Asian and about 1 in 3 is Hispanic, according to the census. In 1980, Jimmy Carter managed to collect about a quarter of the vote against Reagan in the county. But by 1996, with the county diversifying, Bill Clinton grabbed 38 percent of the vote, and Al Gore boosted that to 40 percent in 2000. This year, Obama won 44 percent of the vote in Orange County, according to preliminary returns. Romney "implemented a winning election strategy for 1980," University of Southern California professor Patrick James said in a statement issued by the school. "If you look at the demographics and voting proportions, the Reagan coalition would not win a majority today." Celeste Greig, president of the conservative California Republican Assembly, said in an email to supporters Friday that the party was in need of a makeover, emphasizing Main Street over Wall Street. "We have to admit that as a party in California, we're just plain disorganized," she wrote. Romney bypassed California this year, waging his fight in battlegrounds such as Ohio and Florida. In claiming the biggest electoral prize in America, California's 55 electoral votes, Obama rolled up a nearly 21 percent margin. Voters also returned Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein to Washington in a landslide, after Republicans put up a virtually unknown candidate, Elizabeth Emken, an autism activist who had never held elected office. Independents now outnumber Republicans in 13 congressional districts in California, a trend analysts predict will continue. California counted more registered Republicans in 1988 than it does today, although the population has grown by about 10 million over that time. You'd have to go back to that year to find a Republican presidential candidate who carried the state, George H.W. Bush. Surprisingly, Democrats continued to make gains in the state even at a time of double-digit unemployment, with polls showing that voters are unhappy with Sacramento and Washington. And it could get worse for the GOP. Republicans are trailing in two other House races in which the vote counting continues. It remains unclear what direction Democrats, who have close ties to public employee unions, will take with their additional clout. If they achieve the supermajority in both houses of the Legislature, Democrats can pass tax increases and override gubernatorial vetoes without any Republican support. The state is saddled with a litany of problems, including a long-running budget crisis, massive, unfunded public pension obligations, tuition increases at California universities and growing demands for water, affordable housing and energy. Gov. Jerry Brown sounded a cautionary note this week, saying he intended to avoid spending binges. Still, Democrats believe they have the state's demographics on their side with a message that appeals to a younger, more diverse population. More than half the young voters in the state, ages 18 to 39, are Hispanic, according to the independent Field Poll. Thirty-five percent are Asian. If you look into a classroom in the Los Angeles area – tomorrow's voters – 3 of 4 kids are Hispanic. The GOP retains pockets of influence regionally, including rural, inland areas. Republican National Committee member Shawn Steel has been pushing the party to become more aggressive about recruiting Asians. "It's not just all about the Latinos," he says. Schmidt traces GOP troubles with Hispanics to 1994, when voters with encouragement from Republican Gov. Pete Wilson enacted Proposition 187, which prohibited illegal immigrants from using health care, education or other social services. The law eventually was overturned, but it left lingering resentment with many Hispanics at a time when the Latino population was growing swiftly and becoming increasingly important in elections. California "is not just a large state, population-wise, it's a trend-setting state," said Schmidt, a public relations strategist. "It could be a glimpse of the future." ___ |
||
|
**************************************************************** Wow... is this true. I have been saying this for some time. California is showing the nation what they will become in the next four years. Companies, jobs, and white working people are leaving the state... in droves. Taxes are the highest in the nation. Unemployment here is well above the national average with some pockets as high as 50%. The unions own the state legislature and the governor. Drug cartels are growing illegal drugs in the national forests. A new school bond issue was just passed for several billion, but it does not guarantee any money going to schools after the first year. The water was turned off in some of the best farmland in the country because the Delta Smelt that also lives there might be impacked. The state budget is out of balance by between $19 and $29 BILLION (depending on who is saying it) but the governor is going ahead with a bullet-train between Fresno and Folsom Prison that is scheduled for completion in the 2030's and will cost (projected) about $100 BILLION. This seems to be what California and the nation want. (Move over Greece, Italy, Spain & Portugal... here we come) |
||
|
anomalocaris 11-Nov-12, 13:34 |
I have |
||
|
changeling 11-Nov-12, 13:35 |
Of course demographics in California has changed rapidly over the past generation or so. The ridiculous situation with border crossing by Mexicans in particular looking for work (either legally or illegally) has had a huge impact. This could be looked at a couple of ways. 1. (For the conspiracy theorists) That Mexicans are 'taking back their own territory by overloading California with people they know will not be sent back'. 2. The rampant 'passive acceptance' of illegal workers used in the US (particularly in the farming industry) needs to be addressed in terms of decent wages so 'Americans' will do the jobs for a start. I suspect that many major employers in this area of industry use illegal workers in this way (cheap labour). The question is why? Is it greed, necessity, or an unwillingness to towards hard work by the 'white' population who are getting used to 'soft jobs' in comparison to farming work. |
||
|
changeling 11-Nov-12, 13:43 |
Here we go I couldn't stop laughing! |
||
|
Change ... Softy tends to be over-cynical, as we all know; but, his generalized overview is indeed shared by many who are unwilling or unable to deal with this kind of change. If one looks for the 'bad' or the downhill slippery slope, it's easy to find. Perhaps California needs to be divided into two different states, north and south ... it has just become too populous to manage well as just one; two smaller states might do a better job localizing their governmental needs. Plus, immigration reform combined with improved labor laws would go a long way. |
||
|
cahz Please stop telling other people what you think I believe, what I have said, or what you think I mean. Let them read my words and decide for themselves. And, please stop telling other people what they believe and what they know. Your distorted idea of reality is so out of touch with actuality that I cringe any time you mention something like that. Please continue to give you own personal interpretations but leave my name out of your references. You don't seem to have a clue. |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
Chaz You continue telling people what you think I mean and I'll continue referencing you as I see fit. I deserve it and you are correct. I rather not quite referencing you so please do continue. |
||
|
changeling 11-Nov-12, 22:11 |
|
||
|
dmaestro 11-Nov-12, 22:21 |
www.e50plus.com I think much of the rest is inaccurate or out of context. I don't know about the Train, but when I was in Japan the Bullet train was considered a good investment. Trains are extremely efficient. The cost of travel by personal auto or plane will likely be much more that a fast train by 2030. If the right wing whites leave the state, that should present opportunities for others. Industrious minorities often do better at business anyway. |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
dmaestro 11-Nov-12, 22:53 |
Blue states, particularly those on the left coast, will survive with or without right wing white flight. Go ahead and shrug, good riddance. ================================================ Good riddance to Mitt Romney BY MICHAEL COHEN On Tuesday night, as I watched the election returns roll in, there were moments of great joy – but one of the happiest moment came after the losing candidate delivered his concession speech and disappeared through the backstage curtains at the Boston Convention Center. I realized at that moment that I would likely never again have to write or even, for that matter, think about Mitt Romney. Now, I understand that, as a general rule, you don’t hit a guy when he’s down. Romney suffered a crushing defeat, one that according to aides he was completely unprepared for. But at the end of the day, Romney’s campaign should be assessed in the most accurate possible manner. Its failings should not be sugarcoated or glossed over. Instead, it should be described precisely as it was: One of the most cynical, dishonest and disreputable presidential campaigns in modern American history. From the Republican primaries to practically the final days of his failed presidential campaign, Romney was either blatantly lying about his opponent’s record, adopting policy positions of convenience that ran counter to his past positions, regularly misleading Americans about his own plans or stirring racial acrimony. I don’t feel sorry that Romney lost on Tuesday night; I feel sorry that a great nation had to be subjected to his presidential campaign. Think I’m being too harsh? Well, harken back to the GOP primaries and the ad run by Romney ran against Rick Perry. It attacked Perry for allowing illegal immigrants to attend Texas state universities and then used a supporting statement from former Mexican President Vincente Fox as a bludgeon to castigate Perry – as if being endorsed by Mexico’s president were a scarlet letter. Over the summer, he produced an ad attacking President Obama for lifting work requirements for those on welfare – a charge that not only wasn’t true but was almost certainly intended to promulgate the notion that Obama was providing government benefits to people who didn’t work. Anyone who questions the racial implications of this charge is severely unfamiliar with decades of Republican welfare politics. Later, when toxic curmudgeon and Romney campaign surrogate John Sununu went on television and insinuated that Obama needed to “learn how to be a real American” he wasn’t upbraided by the Romney campaign - he was sent back out on television to make such cheery arguments like the only reason Colin Powell endorsed Obama was because they both were black. Then there was the “you didn’t build it” charge – an out-of-context statement uttered by Obama but in the hands of Romney and his minions became proof positive that Obama hates the free market and entrepreneurship. This was all at pace with Romney’s regular assaults on the truth, such as his oft-repeated charge that Obamacare would lead to government-run health care; that the President had doubled the deficit; that he intended to cut more than $700 billion from Medicare; or that Obama had ventured on a global apology tour. All were untrue, but none of this stopped Romney from repeating them over and over and over again on the campaign trail. Indeed, Romney finished his campaign on yet another lie – an ad claiming that Chrysler was intending to move its Jeep production to China. Once again, even after being called out by reporters who pointed out that the assertion wasn’t true, Romney was unfazed – as he ran another radio ad that made the exact same false charge. Now to be fair, President Obama had his share of truth-stretching assertions, but it was hardly endemic to his campaign. For Romney, daily assaults on the truth were not simply par for the course; they were reflective of his campaign’s overall political strategy. Over the past several years, conservatives have created their own alternate reality with their own set of “facts” about President Obama and the federal government. Romney regularly fanned the flames of conservative delusion, recognizing that an angry, misinformed yet enthusiastic GOP electorate was key to his political aspirations. It was a cynical ploy – and in the hands of a more competent politician it might actually have succeeded. Finally, there was Romney’s extraordinary and unprecedented refusal to engage in traditional campaign transparency. He never released his tax returns. He refused to reveal the names of people who raised money on behalf of his campaign. He was even less forthright about his plans of he were to be elected. The cornerstone of his economic plan was a proposal for a 20% across-the-board tax cut, which he claimed would not explode the deficit and would be paid for by closing loopholes and capping deductions. Never once did he detail what those loopholes or deductions might be. Quite simply, Romney and his campaign were simply allergic to truth, veracity and openness. Now as Romney fades off into the sunset he will likely be little remembered. Democrats feel no affection toward him, but neither do Republicans. Romney was a distinctly unloved presidential nominee. During the GOP primaries he was forced into a protracted political struggle against a motley collection of cranks, also-rans and mediocrities. In the end Republicans accepted him as the party standard bearer because frankly they didn’t have much of a choice. He was just a means to an end for Republicans desperate to defeat the President they hated, a warm body that if he was lucky enough to win the presidency could sign the legislation they pined to enact. Beyond that, Republicans had little use for Mitt Romney. Like Michael Dukakis in 1988, Romney will almost certainly fade into political oblivion, rarely to be heard from again in the realm of national politics. In the end, I’d like to feel a little sorry for a man who suffered such a public defeat and humiliation. But sometimes in life, you get what you deserve. |
||
|
illinawek 12-Nov-12, 04:34 |
1). Ms. Illinawek says that maybe its time to start to consider raising taxes on millionaires (when Ms. Illinawek says this, you rich republicans have no idea how much trouble you are in). 2). America has never thrived on cheap labor. America has historically had the most expensive labor in the World and thrived on having the most expensive labor in the World. Having places with cheap labor thrive (If that's what you want to call it) like Mexico and China is a recent phenomenon. I would suggest that those places are still crap places to live compared to the good old USA, and will continue to be that way. |
||
|
changeling 12-Nov-12, 04:39 |
|
||
|
anomalocaris 12-Nov-12, 04:43 |
Good thing |
||
|
illinawek 12-Nov-12, 04:44 |
|
||
|
changeling 12-Nov-12, 04:45 |
|
||
|
anomalocaris 12-Nov-12, 04:53 |
Change You think this election proves something? It proves half the nation is not happy right now. Besides when I say misguided I'm talking about who has the money. If you want to pretend each argument you have is correct because Obama won go ahead. Its a cop out tho. |
||
|
changeling 12-Nov-12, 05:09 |
stinky I am not a fan of anyone who advocates 'bombing the crap' out of another nation simply because they do agree with their political or religious structure. I am not a fan of any administration that drags 'allies' into stupid military conflicts. I would guess that many here would agree, yes? Of course the Democrats have the money, so do the Republicans. What the Republicans lack is a believable platform to run the country (at the present time). Their candidate was so off the wall it makes one wonder if he was set up in the first place. |
||
|
changeling 12-Nov-12, 05:15 |
|
||
|
anomalocaris 12-Nov-12, 05:16 |
Romney |
||
|
anomalocaris 12-Nov-12, 05:17 |
Change |
||
|
changeling 12-Nov-12, 05:23 |
Obama (or his administration) did bring the troops out of Iraq, is winding down the idiocy in Afghanistan. Did NOT put boots on the ground in Libya, is NOT sending troops into Syria (yet!). Does seem to be attempting to stop hard-line Israel from attacking its neighbours (rightly or wrongly, whichever viewpoint one holds). Has succeeded in getting (almost) universal healthcare for Americans. The list goes on really. Did the last administration achieve anything worthwhile? Not a facetious comment, more a question. |
||
|
dmaestro 12-Nov-12, 11:39 |
|
||
|
|
